Attack on magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

[Touring Mars]

@ECGadget enlightened us with some of the precepts of Islam yesterday. The full text is below but I'll just pull out a few random lines to illustrate the point:

First thing is first: Islam IS a religion of peace.
As well as this the prophet gathered all the Muslims and said to them that they must never harm anyone of those people under the treaty.
Fighting? No needed unless necessary.
You will only fight the armed men.
You will not harm a woman, or a child, or an elderly person.
You will not fight in anger

The above certainly appears to support the claim that Islam is a religion of peace. The problem is, however, that it is very debatable just how deeply entrenched these laudable values really are within Islam at all levels, but especially within the higher echelons of the religion - scholars, imams, preachers, tribal elders, politicians, leaders etc..

The unfortunate truth is that there are far too many of these powerful and influential people who seemingly haven't got the memo that Islam is a peaceful religion, and indeed Sharia itself appears to flatly contradict some of the most important points mentioned above. Sharia is not a trivial or secondary aspect either - it is a definitive and central aspect of Islam, and yet under Sharia, the penalty for abandoning one's Islamic faith (or for not being Islamic by virtue of one's atheism) is not only considered a religious crime, but punishments for such a 'crime' include execution. That is not peaceful. On the contrary, it enshrines and normalizes intolerance and extreme violence. I agree that Islam ought to be (and in the eyes of many people, actually is) a peaceful means by which to live one's life. But one might be forgiven for respectfully disagreeing, especially when one of the most central tenets of the faith provides for the killing of those who reject it.

 

[ECGadget]

The above certainly appears to support the claim that Islam is a religion of peace. The problem is, however, that it is very debatable just how deeply entrenched these laudable values really are within Islam at all levels, but especially within the higher echelons of the religion - scholars, imams, preachers, tribal elders, politicians, leaders etc..

The unfortunate truth is that there are far too many of these powerful and influential people who seemingly haven't got the memo that Islam is a peaceful religion, and indeed Sharia itself appears to flatly contradict some of the most important points mentioned above. Sharia is not a trivial or secondary aspect either - it is a definitive and central aspect of Islam, and yet under Sharia, the penalty for abandoning one's Islamic faith (or for not being Islamic by virtue of one's atheism) is not only considered a religious crime, but punishments for such a 'crime' include execution. That is not peaceful. On the contrary, it enshrines and normalizes intolerance and extreme violence. I agree that Islam ought to be (and in the eyes of many people, actually is) a peaceful means by which to live one's life. But one might be forgiven for respectfully disagreeing, especially when one of the most central tenets of the faith provides for the killing of those who reject it.

You are quite right mate, but these values SHOULD be the core of what Muslims should live by. As for Shariah law, I think the second part of my post may help with that:

Going to continue this post here; 0100 was not the best time to be writing but I felt I had to. So, next thing I wish to clear up is culture and religion. It is very true that culture becomes entangled in religion very often. But that does not make the culture part of the religion, or vice versa.
A very specific point I wish to make is to do with women, their rights and their status in Islam. I know that many of us probably see Islam dipicting women as a lower species, designed only to please man and that is it. But Islam does NOT teach that at all. As a matter of fact, when the Prophet got married for the first time he married a lady who went by the name of Khadijah. Was she a simple (not belittling any of these people) housewife? Was she a women who sat at home all day? No. She was in fact a businesswomen, and ran one of the most successful businesses throughout the arabian empire. That is pretty in contrary to what we see right? Women cooped up in houses, forced to not work? Which is religion and which is cultural? From that example it is pretty obvious, right?
Now let's fast forward almost 1500 years to this day and age. Are women forced to wear modest clothing in Islam? No. But they are encouraged to do so. Are they forced to wear a hijab (a headscarf) or else cover their whole face? No. But again, they are just encouraged. If ANYONE forces this upon a woman, then they are in error because Islam is not a religion of force. The question then arises, how did all this come about? Well allow me to explain that too.
Islam is a very complex religion, just as any others. It is full of examples that to you and I would seemingly contradict each other. There is the Quraan (the holy book, akin to the Bible and Tablets in a sense). Then there is the Hadith (a collection of narrations about things the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did and said). A guide for muslims to try and follow. To you and I, it is easy to read these and say, "Well, this is obviously what it means." And this is what people like IS try to build upon. This is what people who wish to knock Islam build upon. Because after all, if it is clearly said then what arguement is there, right? Wrong.
If I were to show a random person an engineering diagram for a 1980s F1 car today, he would associate it with a car. That much is certain. Then if I were to not say anything further, this person would believe that this car is the ultimate F1 car and is the best you can get. However, if I were to then further explain the aerodynamics, mechanics, electronics etc of the car then the person would realise that it is not in fact the best design but there is now a context to why that design is used or was used. Now the person is a lot more knowledgable about this car and understands what it really means.
Similarly, in Islam there are people like this. The rest of the muslims and the world is like the random person. The higher ranking scholar is like the engineer who studied the diagrams for years. They could spend four or five months, if not more on a single page of the Quraan or a single saying in the Hadith, disecting it bit by bit until it was fully understood. Then they will tell us what it really means. It says in the Quraan itself that "This book can lead you to good, but it can also lead you to bad". The warning is clearly there, but nobody ever talks about that do they? The simple fact is that we are ALL victims of our own ignorance because we do not bother to seek the truth about anything if it does not suit us. I am guilty of it, you all reading are guilty of it at some point. All we like to do is knock things we do not like by highlighting discrepencies that may or may not be related to the subject matter. We are sitting here droning on about IS and how muslims treat women and how they want to kill everyone else etc etc. But have any of us just took a step back, away from the media and wondered how much of it is truely religion and how much of it is down to the downright bad nature of us as humans? I quoted a number of examples in the early hours of the morning. If I could have half the tolerance or kindness or patience of Muhammad as mentioned in those stories then I would class myself as a good man. I have nothing against a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Atheist, Agnostic etc. I take issue with people who twist religion into their own selfish reasons for violence and destruction. I take issue with people who take things without looking at context and then use that as a reason to hate. I take issue with people who do not learn the full story before making their conclusions.
What next? Oh yes, the worldwide condemnation of what happened recently in France. I was browsing twitter earlier and I noticed that a trending topic was "Muslims". So I decided to take a quick peek and see what the world was saying about them. I saw churches in Australia defending Islam. That is Christianity. I saw French citizens apologising for the way mosques are now being targetted. Humanity. But I also saw people full of hate for Muslims. This hate is the same hate that caused two world wars, segregation between coloured and white, racism around the world and the general predicament the world is in right now. If I have learnt anything from studying Islam and anything from being a proud British citizen, it is that fighting fire with fire only gives you more fire. The only way to fight fire is with water. You don't like what someone does? You talk to them about it, understand why they do it and then make a judgement. You do not go in guns blaxing because you do not agree with it. That is not what Islam teaches, nor is it what humanity consists of.
Let's end the fighting by starting here, now. The pen (or keyboard) is truely mightier than the sword (or gun). Why don't we work towards a common goal of peace without blaming religion. Blame the people responsible. And before you proportion blame, always look beyond what you see. There is more going on in the world than any of us knw, and it is about time we used our minds and found out, instead of exhuasting ourselves on mindless debates that could rage on until the end of time itself.

And just to point something out and make it abundantly clear. There is NO death penalty for rejecting Islam. I believe the saying goes: "God guides whom he wishes. Muslims are not here to make everyone Muslims. They are only here to show the world what Islam is". The death penalty would class under rules not being interpreted correctly. But I am not a scholar in Islam or any religion for that matter, nevertheless I know this for certain.

 

[kennylmao]

And just to point something out and make it abundantly clear. There is NO death penalty for rejecting Islam. I believe the saying goes: "God guides whom he wishes. Muslims are not here to make everyone Muslims. They are only here to show the world what Islam is". The death penalty would class under rules not being interpreted correctly. But I am not a scholar in Islam or any religion for that matter, nevertheless I know this for certain.

Wait, you're serious?

Tell me my country (and 12 other Muslim countries) are "misinterpreting" Islam.

 

[Roger the Horse]

But those people are prompting you for a reaction.

And are followers of many forms of Islam not prompting one for a reaction when they say "you must not draw the prophet Muhammad according to arbitrary rules we are imposing on you which you never agreed to which are never referenced in your country's law books"?

 

[ECGadget]

Wait, you're serious?

Tell me my country (and 12 other Muslim countries) are "misinterpreting" Islam.

Yes, I am completely and utterly serious. If someone decides to leave Islam, he does not need be put to death. However, I will try to look up more about this. But again this goes back to taking things out of context. In any sense, if Muslims (namely muslim leaders in countries) acted according to how they should then I doubt anybody would leave Islam. Nevertheless you have made a good point and I will see if I can get some more information on that...

In fact on that note I do have something. I know of a religious leader where I live. He was approached by a boy and the boy told him that he does believe in Islam anymore (due to what was happening). The leader did not say anything about killing him. Instead he invited him to eat with him and to understand why he had left Islam. As far as I know that boy is still alive...

 

[Touring Mars]

And just to point something out and make it abundantly clear. There is NO death penalty for rejecting Islam.

That is simply not true.

 

[ECGadget]

That is simply not true.

Alright, here we go:

In the presence of a FULL khalifate there can be a death penalty applied for one who leaves the fold of Islam without an external influence (i.e. propaganda etc). The death penalty can ONLY apply IF and ONLY IF the person announces it publically. It does not apply to a woman, or a child etc. In the case of the penalty it can ONLY be applied on a case by case basis by a full ruling body. Because of that it makes it very rare for it to happen and thus pretty much does not apply. Furthermore there is NO full khalifate on Earth, therefore the law cannot be upheld either. If I recall there has only been once incident of a death penalty being warranted and that was for Salman Rushdie.
So, whilst you are right in the fact that the death penalty IS there, there is not enough backing on the penalty for it to even be applied in todays day and age. The same way there is no backing for anyone changing religion and having suffer a death penalty (which used to apply to Christians and Jews as well). Now in the case of Mr Rushdie, the only reason I can think that the death penalty applied was because all of the ruling bodies on Earth unanimously agreed and he did FAR more than just leave a religion.

This is the best that I can explain with my limited knowledge. I hope it helps? @kennylmao

 

[Roger the Horse]

I have to say, I was highly impressed by the cover of The Independent today.

On a railway station news stand where, barring The Grauniad, all of the other British newspapers had the same somewhat tasteless image of a police officer being murdered, there was The Independent, middle finger proudly in the air.

And nothing else bar the name, the date, and the price.

 

[Famine]

Alright, here we go:

In the presence of a FULL khalifate there can be a death penalty applied for one who leaves the fold of Islam without an external influence (i.e. propaganda etc). The death penalty can ONLY apply IF and ONLY IF the person announces it publically. It does not apply to a woman, or a child etc. In the case of the penalty it can ONLY be applied on a case by case basis by a full ruling body. Because of that it makes it very rare for it to happen and thus pretty much does not apply. Furthermore there is NO full khalifate on Earth, therefore the law cannot be upheld either. If I recall there has only been once incident of a death penalty being warranted and that was for Salman Rushdie.
So, whilst you are right in the fact that the death penalty IS there, there is not enough backing on the penalty for it to even be applied in todays day and age. The same way there is no backing for anyone changing religion and having suffer a death penalty.

This is the best that I can explain with my limited knowledge. I hope it helps? @kennylmao

And yet Maryam Yaḥya Ibrahim Isḥaq was sentenced to death for apostasy in Sudan in 2013 and Abdirahman Ahmed was executed for it in Somalia in 2009.

 

[ECGadget]

And yet Maryam Yaḥya Ibrahim Isḥaq was sentenced to death for apostasy in Sudan in 2013 and Abdirahman Ahmed was executed for it in Somalia in 2009.

Which I believe was not right. But this is the problem see. Twisting rules to suit people. Neither Sudan nor Somalia have a full khalifate, despite them being predominantly Muslim. If they want to apply the rules they should accept ALL the rules, every single one. I do not even think Saudi Arabia has a khalifate...

 

[Luminis]

Ahoy Luminis, thanks for the link. Seems legit, where do I sign up ? After what happened, can you blame them for furthering their agenda ? The people of Europe are getting sick of pandering to Islamic immigrants perhaps.

Well, PEGIDA isn't a movement I'd get behind. They're targeting immigrants, from what I've seen, and don't differentiate between extremists that might actually cause trouble and decent people that just happen to be muslims.

There's a fine line between "being sick of pandering to immigrants" and pursuing an at least partially xenophobic agenda. To me, at least. I've got some muslim friends myself, decent citizens, wouldn't ever hurt a fly and they're somehwat scared of PEGIDA and what might come from that movement - maybe rightfully so.

A double edged sword, that's what it is.

 

[Mark T]

Thank you @Johnnypenso for quoting me here. Muslims are truely very peaceful, but ideals have been twisted and cultures have twisted religion.

It really is time for us to end terrorism in every way, shape and form. But we have to do it by taking down the individuals responsible, and stop disgracing religion they way the terrorists throughout the centuries have done so. And to do that, we as humans have to respect differences and not give into the phobias that constantly are thrown in our faces. Once it was: White man = bad. Then it was: Native american = bad. so on and so on. Black man = bad. German = bad. Chinese = bad. Christian = bad. Muslim = bad.
Can we all now say:
Individual people = bad. Not a whole sect, race or religion.


In addition to this, yes I think that what that magazine did was over the line. But the response of going in and killing not only the one who drew it but ELEVEN others is even further over the line. The correct response would have been to peacefully go up to them and explain why it is offensive. OR understand that this magazine is known for insulting everyone and everything and thus ignoring it. Two solutions that would not have resulted in this situation.

I disagree.

People (not Muslims) are truly peaceful. What makes many hundreds of millions of people bigoted, fearful, violent and all round scum bags is religion. Religion at it's fundamental roots is violent, oppressive, discriminatory and hateful. Nothing has been "twisted". The only reason religion has become less of a dominant violent force is because democratic societies have challenged religion through the centuries and made it moderate. Religion hasn't changed because it wanted to, it changed because it had to.

People talk about the scripture being misinterpreted. Nonsense. It's very clear, the only reason it seems like it has been misinterpreted is because the bigoted views and violence within it would have been the norm during the bronze age. We can't imagine ever living in the bronze age, it seems alien to us. However, the people we call radicals or fundamentalists want to return us to the bronze age.

When we talk about moderate Muslims/Christians we refer to those who don't follow the scripture as it's written. Go to any Islamic state and see just how restrictive the societies are. Dress codes, no kissing in public, restrictions on music and arts, public lashing, hanging and imprisonment for writing derogatory words about a prophet. That's how religion ruled for centuries.

The magazine didn't go over any "line". There is not a line when it comes to free speech and expression. The cartoonists know the images are offensive and that's the point. It's about challenging the taboos in society, it's about saying that YOU as a Muslim cannot insult Mohammed, YOU cannot draw his image. However freedom from religion means that YOUR rules don't apply to me.

I'll say it again, the Islamic scripture insults me directly as a non-believer. More than any cartoon could insult a Muslim.

 

[Omnis]

That's offensive towards blind people!

I can't see how.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Alright, here we go:

In the presence of a FULL khalifate there can be a death penalty applied for one who leaves the fold of Islam without an external influence (i.e. propaganda etc). The death penalty can ONLY apply IF and ONLY IF the person announces it publically. It does not apply to a woman, or a child etc. In the case of the penalty it can ONLY be applied on a case by case basis by a full ruling body. Because of that it makes it very rare for it to happen and thus pretty much does not apply. Furthermore there is NO full khalifate on Earth, therefore the law cannot be upheld either. If I recall there has only been once incident of a death penalty being warranted and that was for Salman Rushdie.
So, whilst you are right in the fact that the death penalty IS there, there is not enough backing on the penalty for it to even be applied in todays day and age. The same way there is no backing for anyone changing religion and having suffer a death penalty (which used to apply to Christians and Jews as well). Now in the case of Mr Rushdie, the only reason I can think that the death penalty applied was because all of the ruling bodies on Earth unanimously agreed and he did FAR more than just leave a religion.

This is the best that I can explain with my limited knowledge. I hope it helps? @kennylmao

Here we go. Here is some wisdom directly from the horse's mouth that proves otherwise. When Mohammad was writing the Quran, he was told by some of his followers that some of his teachings were in conflict with others. His response was found in 2:106: Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We {Allah} abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things? What he means here is that his "god" was capable of doing all things, even changing his mind when it suits him.

Taking that a step further, when the Quran was compiled into book form, all of Mohammad's writings were ordered from the longest to the shortest without any regard to historical and literal context. Take a look at Quran 50:45 and Sura 109, both "revealed" in Mecca:

50:45. We know of best what they say; and you (O Muhammad) are not a tyrant over them (to force them to Belief). But warn by the Qur’an, him who fears My Threat.109:1. Say (O Muhammad to these Mushrikun and Kafirun): “O Al-Kafirun (disbelievers in Allah, in His Oneness, in His Angels, in His Books, in His Messengers, in the Day of Resurrection, and in Al-Qadar {divine foreordainment and sustaining of all things}, etc.)!
109:2. “I worship not that which you worship,
109:3. “Nor will you worship that which I worship.
109:4. “And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping.
109:5. “Nor will you worship that which I worship.
109:6. “To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islamic Monotheism).

Then there is this passage, which was "revealed" after Mohammad's army took over Medina and were still venerable:

2:256. There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghut {idolatry} and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.

Then comes the "verse of the sword", which was revealed later in Mohammad's life:

9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun {unbelievers} wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat {the Islamic ritual prayers}), and give Zakat {alms}, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Having been revealed later in Muhammad's life than 50:45, 109, and 2:256, the Verse of the Sword abrogates their peaceful injunctions in accordance with 2:106. Sura 8, revealed shortly before Sura 9, reveals a similar theme:

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

9:29. Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

9:33. It is He {Allah} Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it).

Taking 2:106 into account, this means that every "revelation" that Mohammad had in his later life is meant to supersede all of his early teachings about peace.

 

[Carbonox]

^Those violent (Satanic even?) verses have been quoted numerous times before on GTP, but certain people never seem to take them seriously, even though they are meant to replace older, more peaceful verses...

 

[kennylmao]

@ECGadget Thanks, that clears things up. Can't believe I've been living a lie along with hundreds of millions of people.

 

[ECGadget]

I disagree.

People (not Muslims) are truly peaceful. What makes many hundreds of millions of people bigoted, fearful, violent and all round scum bags is religion. Religion at it's fundamental roots is violent, oppressive, discriminatory and hateful. Nothing has been "twisted". The only reason religion has become less of a dominant violent force is because democratic societies have challenged religion through the centuries and made it moderate. Religion hasn't changed because it wanted to, it changed because it had to.

People talk about the scripture being misinterpreted. Nonsense. It's very clear, the only reason it seems like it has been misinterpreted is because the bigoted views and violence within it would have been the norm during the bronze age. We can't imagine ever living in the bronze age, it seems alien to us. However, the people we call radicals or fundamentalists want to return us to the bronze age.

When we talk about moderate Muslims/Christians we refer to those who don't follow the scripture as it's written. Go to any Islamic state and see just how restrictive the societies are. Dress codes, no kissing in public, restrictions on music and arts, public lashing, hanging and imprisonment for writing derogatory words about a prophet. That's how religion ruled for centuries.

The magazine didn't go over any "line". There is not a line when it comes to free speech and expression. The cartoonists know the images are offensive and that's the point. It's about challenging the taboos in society, it's about saying that YOU as a Muslim cannot insult Mohammed, YOU cannot draw his image. However freedom from religion means that YOUR rules don't apply to me.

I'll say it again, the Islamic scripture insults me directly as a non-believer. More than any cartoon could insult a Muslim.

I take your disagreement and I can understand that. But let us take just Islam for now (since that is the current topic of choice). If Religion is violent, oppressive, discriminatory and hateful then why is that a Muslim greets with a greeting of peace? I do not deny the fact that religion has caused violence, because to do so would be to be very ignorant. But in an Islamic state you have a duty as a human to respect those laws. Just like in the UK we respect the laws of parliment. Furthermore you cannot say that nothing has been twisted. I have given numerous examples on the Islam thread to show what Islam really is meant to be. If what these people do cannot be called twisted, than what can?

Yes, YOU as a Muslim cannot insult Muhammad. YOU cannot draw his image. Being free from religion means that those rules do NOT apply to you. Nobody denies that at all. However, there is a line of respect that has to be kept. For example say I swore a lot and you did not like swearing. I would not swear in front of you. That is respect. And I am not pointing this at the magazine. I am pointing this at me more than anyone. I must learn to further respect people as well as anyone else. I am just as guilty of not showing the respect.

Here we go. Here is some wisdom directly from the horse's mouth that proves otherwise. When Mohammad was writing the Quran, he was told by some of his followers that some of his teachings were in conflict with others. His response was found in 2:106: Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We {Allah} abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things? What he means here is that his "god" was capable of doing all things, even changing his mind when it suits him.

Taking that a step further, when the Quran was compiled into book form, all of Mohammad's writings were ordered from the longest to the shortest without any regard to historical and literal context. Take a look at Quran 50:45 and Sura 109, both "revealed" in Mecca:

50:45. We know of best what they say; and you (O Muhammad) are not a tyrant over them (to force them to Belief). But warn by the Qur’an, him who fears My Threat.109:1. Say (O Muhammad to these Mushrikun and Kafirun): “O Al-Kafirun (disbelievers in Allah, in His Oneness, in His Angels, in His Books, in His Messengers, in the Day of Resurrection, and in Al-Qadar {divine foreordainment and sustaining of all things}, etc.)!
109:2. “I worship not that which you worship,
109:3. “Nor will you worship that which I worship.
109:4. “And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping.
109:5. “Nor will you worship that which I worship.
109:6. “To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islamic Monotheism).

Then there is this passage, which was "revealed" after Mohammad's army took over Medina and were still venerable:

2:256. There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghut {idolatry} and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.

Then comes the "verse of the sword", which was revealed later in Mohammad's life:

9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun {unbelievers} wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat {the Islamic ritual prayers}), and give Zakat {alms}, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Having been revealed later in Muhammad's life than 50:45, 109, and 2:256, the Verse of the Sword abrogates their peaceful injunctions in accordance with 2:106. Sura 8, revealed shortly before Sura 9, reveals a similar theme:

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

9:29. Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

9:33. It is He {Allah} Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it).

Taking 2:106 into account, this means that every "revelation" that Mohammad had in his later life is meant to supersede all of his early teachings about peace.

Once again, please look at my post in the thread directly about Islam. We as in You and I cannot just take these at face value. There are people who study these for years and years to understand the full meaning, taking into account everything that happened around it. And lastly, you are incorrect that the Quraan was compiled from longest to shortest. The compilation of the Quraan was actually very specifically predetermined. Reveal order? No. But the order has been chosen specifically. It is not longest to shortest, but the general trend is towards shorter verses chapters yes. However this can be disproved very easily. After the fifth chapter this trend breaks down. Some chapters are longer than others, other shorter. So why are they in that order? Well, the chapters that were revealed in the time when the prophet was in Makkah were to do with spreading religion. Once in Medinah, the religion was established and the chapters revealed were more so about rules and things like that. This is an oversimplication of course, but in essence correct. I will not deny you that fact.

Now, let us look at the 5th chapter that was revealed. In Arabic that is Al-Fatiha. In English it means "The Opening". So, would the opening make sense in position 5? No. And if you read the entire quraan slowly and word by word you will see there is a logical order to it.

However, again I will say this: The only people who should be interpreting the Quraan and Hadith fully are those who have a mastery in CLASSICAL arabic, mastery of the ENTIRE book, a thorough knowledge of the Hadith. A full knowledge of arabian history and a full knowledge of Islam throughout the generations. Sadly that is not me. But let me again make it clear. To take the quraan at complete face value and not regard the context at all is not the way to do it.

@ECGadget Thanks, that clears things up. Can't believe I've been living a lie along with hundreds of millions of people.

Um.... thanks? Not sure if sarcasm, but this is what I believe and I know from what I have learnt. Whether I am wrong or not, you would need to talk to people far more learned than me about Islam who have no political motivation either (i.e. not a goverment figure!)


And on that note, I believe I have exhausted my knowledge on this subject so I am sorry for not providing more information!

 

[kennylmao]

@ECGadget Your interpretation of the religion is good, just a tiny bit out of touch with reality. Honestly wish I could elect you to be like a Pope of Islam or something.

 

[ECGadget]

@ECGadget Your interpretation of the religion is good, just a tiny bit out of touch with reality. Honestly wish I could elect you to be like a Pope of Islam or something.

Maybe it is not a tiny bit out of touch with reality. Maybe Muslims have just forgotten what it means to be a Muslim... not just five daily prayers, fasting for a month and believing in Muhammad, but about peace and tolerance and protecting everyone. Not about suicide bombing and cheating and having one billion wives but about understanding and caring and being good humans... But so have many other people from all over the world. Maybe we should try to change by being the good people...


What I want to put across here is that religion is not bad. But the human nature to not tolerate differences and then blame it on religion leads to (as @Mark T has put it), bigoted, fearful, violent and all out scum bags. I accept that, but we can all change it together. Not by changing religion, but by really understanding what it means to be human and of a religion. (or not as the case may be)

 

[tarnheld]

I think this religious debate does not get us anywhere. There will always be extremists. A free society should cope with it through justice.

The Titanic editor Tim Wolff said this about the attacks, i have translated an excerpt from german:

That is the reason why fanatics, especially religious ones, despise humor. They represent a dead serious, single eternal truth, and jokes -- no matter how smart or funny they might be -- threatens this truth. Religion (and many other ideologies) is madness in disguise of rationality, satire and humor is rationality in disguise of madness. The one has to
get the other wrong. That's why the advocates of the holy austerity approach humor always with anger. And they have every right to do so. As long as they use the same weapons as satirists : the word and the image. And not machine guns.

Since yesterday this is more important than ever: Long live the joke. The smart one, the feeble one. Everyone that finds enough people who laugh about it. And those that don't like it should embrace this: put up with it or ignore it. You will not overcome humor!

 

[MatskiMonk]

How is it possible for a satirist to avoid being intentionally offensive?

It's not really, as I said originally, but it remains a choice that they make.

So you see how not saying anything can be offensive?

In either case you'd be making the effort to be antagonistic.

Were all 10 cartoonists killed yesterday responsible for an offensive picture of Mohamed (that being offensive by way of being a picture of Mohamed)? What about the policemen? What about the Muslim policeman, executed where he lay - what did he do to provoke "the reaction" that we say was to be expected?

I'm not trying to answer in defence of the gunmen. I can only guess that once people have turned to violence they are prepared to accept a certain number of superfluous casualties (i.e. "I'm going to kill them and anyone who tries to stop me"), that is no more acceptable than the killing anyone in the first place.

You don't respect something by hating it in private and faking it in public. Respect is when you hold something - a person, a value, an idea - in esteem for its value.

This isn't about hating something in private and faking it in public. For sure that happens (weddings, visits from the in-laws, dinner at your bosses house), but again, I don't see it as being related to deliberately being offensive. Granted, maybe the better word for that is tolerance.

I don't give any value to the idea that no-one can draw a picture and label it Mohamed - I do not respect it. ....

I DO give value to the idea that people who believe in these things ... - I respect it.

Again maybe respect was the wrong word, perhaps sensitivity would have been be a better word. But would you accept that even within the boundaries of the law, some actions are inappropriate?

And are followers of many forms of Islam not prompting one for a reaction when they say "you must not draw the prophet Muhammad according to arbitrary rules we are imposing on you which you never agreed to which are never referenced in your country's law books"?

Not at all the same as the context in which Famine stated. Feeling like you want to give a response is not the same as being asked for one.


___


Perhaps I am too tolerant and sensitive towards other peoples beliefs. It would explain why I always feel like I'm on the side of the "yes" voters in the God thread, even though I am not particularly. I should probably work on that.

 

[Touring Mars]

The problem that mainstream Islam and moderate Muslims the world over have to address is the growing influence of the influential minority who strongly advocate a hardline adherence to Sharia. Statistics are not particularly meaningful either - perhaps most Saudi citizens are peaceful Muslims... but that does not make Islam itself peaceful - it would just mean that Muslims are predominately peaceful and law-abiding. But, given that you could be sentenced to 10 years in jail and publicly flogged for having this very discussion in Saudi Arabia, it doesn't really matter if most Saudis are peaceful when the authorities subscribe to hardline Sharia, where brutal violence against dissenters is enshrined in law, a law that is considered the backbone of Islam itself.

 

[Famine]

In either case you'd be making the effort to be antagonistic.

Nevertheless, you agree that there are situations where saying something is offensive and saying nothing is offensive - because anyone may take offence at anything for any reason at any time.

I'm not trying to answer in defence of the gunmen. I can only guess that once people have turned to violence they are prepared to accept a certain number of superfluous casualties (i.e. "I'm going to kill them and anyone who tries to stop me"), that is no more acceptable than the killing anyone in the first place.

Yet you agree that they had done nothing to even suspect - let alone expect - the murderous reaction of whomever decided that they should shoulder the consequences of their belief that their beliefs had been offended?

This isn't about hating something in private and faking it in public. For sure that happens (weddings, visits from the in-laws, dinner at your bosses house), but again, I don't see it as being related to deliberately being offensive. Granted, maybe the better word for that is tolerance.

I'm not sure it is.

I wouldn't tolerate someone telling me what I could draw or what I could eat any more than I'd respect it. I'd still equally tolerate and respect their choice on what they could draw or eat - but they don't get to make the decision for me.

Again maybe respect was the wrong word, perhaps sensitivity would have been be a better word. But would you accept that even within the boundaries of the law, some actions are inappropriate?

What's appropriate depends on the individual (and situation), just as what's offensive does.

Not at all the same as the context in which Famine stated. Feeling like you want to give a response is not the same as being asked for one.

Whoah there. You're suggesting here that being told - by threat of force and murder - that we must not write certain words and draw certain images is not being "deliberately provocative" or "antagonistic"? Only it looks quite antagonistic to me.

 

[Swagger897]

Some people take religion too seriously...
Some people take cartoons too seriously...
Few kill each other over them.

In all reality that's what they did, but most likely not their motives, and I'm not speaking for that/them. It's sad to see what they did because now you have people making money off of it, already posted in this thread, and none of the profit will most likely be going to Hebdo.

The non-violent protests seem* to be the same as what happened here in the states with the Ferguson issue. However, like the night they revealed the verdict, you have some who disregard the issue at hand and take their anger at those who are innocent of non-related religious brothers/property.

Whether or not those of whom are Muslim or follow Islam claim they are "brothers" or not, the principles are still followed by each other, except the radical group does not accept morals of others.

I have nothing against those who follow Islam. I have everything against those who do not respect laws, human rights, and the general code of life. However, I will not follow those principles which killed Charlie. I have my own view of life and how I want to interpret it, and those who believe in religions of Islam or any for that matter can believe in theirs.
But when the ideals/ that you follow inflict with others and their ways of life, or laws must be created to protect others from your religion/beliefs, then restrictions should be enacted to protect others.

Isolation is never a good thing either, when you prevent yourself from connecting with others who show sentiments against your views...

* In the way that laws were abided (including jaywalking and public obscenity) for mass protests

 

[tarnheld]

Perhaps I am too tolerant and sensitive towards other peoples beliefs. It would explain why I always feel like I'm on the side of the "yes" voters in the God thread, even though I am not particularly. I should probably work on that.

I understand your point, but do you see the irony of talking about tolerance toward beliefs when people resort to killing other people that have drawn some pictures they don't like?

 

[Dennisch]

Reports come out now that the 2 abandoned their car and now are hiding in a forest.

 

[eran0004]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...harlie-Hebdos-satire.-What-if-were-wrong.html

 

[Dotini]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...harlie-Hebdos-satire.-What-if-were-wrong.html

Bottom line, the massacre has little or nothlng to do with satire, free speech or Charlie Hebdo.

 

[mister dog]

Reports come out now that the 2 abandoned their car and now are hiding in a forest.

Yup, forest the size of Paris. Will be hard to find them there.

 

[Dennisch]

Yup, forest the size of Paris. Will be hard to find them there.

Infrared camera on a helicopter, couple of sniffing dogs, can't be too difficult.

Bottom line, the massacre has little or nothlng to do with satire, free speech or Charlie Hebdo.

You do realize that that is just a what if scenario, right?